Cognitive Dissonance or How we Resolve our Dissonances.

[_beastie]

Classic categorization tactic.

Charity's inner dialog: "Beastie was one of THOSE Mormons"

Believers are taught that there are a limited number of reasons for a Mormon losing faith. Sinning, wanting to sin, laziness, pride, or never having believed in the first place. Obviously Charity is eager to figure out in which slot to place me.

The fact is that I was such a faithful, loyal believer that members of my ward were shocked when I left the church.

[_charity]

I’ll close by calling your attention to the fact that I quoted verbatim paragraphs from your post and responded directly to them.

I much prefer to use color to distinguish people in the discussion as individuals are quoted and a response is given. This is much more difficult to read.

JAK

JAK, I don't wish to go back through this post paragraph by paragraph. There are some general observations.

1. You insist on holding up this, clean, open, whatever lens that everyone must look through. Your lens, however, is of you own grinding. It is like putting a microscrope to your supper. YOu can't take the time to look at every little atom of mashed potatoes.

2. Piaget's theory of learning does not refer ONLY to correct, accurate nformation. If we only learned that which was correct, we would all be wandering around in an ignorant fog. It is how we deal with EVERY piece of information we are confronted with.

3. Cognifitive dissonance is cognitive dissonance. There isn't one kind of cognitive dissonance for religion, and a different one for everything else.

Charity,
Read the link to Wikipedia I gave you. You misrepresent what that author was addressing in your post.

Charity stated:
JAK, I don't wish to go back through this post paragraph by paragraph.

JAK:
Of course you don’t. I addressed exactly what you said after I quoted you with copy/paste.

Charity stated:
1. You insist on holding up this, clean, open, whatever lens that everyone must look through. Your lens, however, is of you own grinding. It is like putting a microscrope to your supper. YOu can't take the time to look at every little atom of mashed potatoes.

JAK:
There is no refutation here for my comments, Charity.
Address the precise detail of my comments if you wish. The issue is clear, transparent evidence which will stand the test of open skeptical review. Cognitive dissidence is the difference between we know or can know and our refusal (dissidence) to recognize the evidence.

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs.

Charity stated:
2. Piaget's theory of learning does not refer ONLY to correct, accurate nformation. If we only learned that which was correct, we would all be wandering around in an ignorant fog. It is how we deal with EVERY piece of information we are confronted with. (bold added to clarify flawed statement)

JAK:
Re-read the details of the author’s biography which I linked for you.

Your statement in 2 makes no sense. Jersey Girl addressed you as well on your flawed thinking.

There is no need to deal with information in a “fog.” And when information clearly and in detail refutes ancient mythologies, we should opt for the information. General ignorance increases as we turn back the clock of history. We know more today than we knew 100 years ago and more than we knew 10 years ago.

As updated information becomes available, we (most rational people) embrace the new information. We use it (applied science such as your computer).

Charity stated:
3. Cognifitive dissonance is cognitive dissonance. There isn't one kind of cognitive dissonance for religion, and a different one for everything else.

JAK:
Sentence one is a circular definition which says and defines nothing.

Second, any disconnect with reliable information in people is cognitive dissonance.

Look up some words here. You’re attempting a straw man attack. Otherwise, you would have quoted me directly and addressed what I actually said.

JAK

Sorry, JAK, I have no intention of looking at the mashed potatoes under a microscope. Besides, I could cut and paste you responses into any post on any topic. You pretty much bring a Johnny One Note to the board.

[_Jersey Girl]

charity

Cognitive dissonance is part of the reason why we learn. It is neither bad nor good. It just is.

Schol teacher time. Sorry ifyou all already know this.

As a matter of fact, I do already know this. You might say that I make a living from knowing it...and teaching it.

Jean Piaget called it adaptation. And there are two features--assimilation and accomodation. We all form schemas. When new information comes in that doesn't fit, this creates cognitive dissonance, and it is uncomfortalbe enough to motivate us to resolve the conflict.

Sloppily put, but I'll accept it.

Sometimes, we rework the old schema so that the new information can fit in without changing the new information. Sometimes we change the new information so it will fit the schema without changing the scheme. Assimilation or accomodation.

The changing of new information is where you go wrong, charity. It is not the changing of information that constitutes assimilation and accomdation, it is *the revising of schema*. How on earth you can justify corrupting Piagetian theory is beyond me.

I have read an article by Terryl Givens (The Lightning of Heaven, BYU studies) where he makes the statement that there is plenty of evidence on either side for what he calls "a life of credible belief" or "a life of dismissive denial."

What is his position of conclusions reached via critical thinking and analysis. There are more options than what you say Givens presents.

I think this assimilation/accomodation problem is the answer on the surface to why two people can take the same information and deal with it in these contrary modes.

The real question is why does one person go one way and the other person go the other?

Because one person is functioning in formal ops and other in concrete ops

Come on, charity! This is Piagetian Theory 101 for Dummies!

OR...

They are both functioning in formal ops and one or the other compartmentalizes their thinking.

I would be interested to hear ideas on this. And I hope the discussion can stay well above the level of "because you are stupid," or "because you are brainwashed."

How do you plan to incorporate the stages of cognitive development in to your theory? You could have thought a little more about the characteristics and cognitive abilities of concrete vs formal ops instead of skimming the surface of Piagetian theory and simply reducing it to assimilation and accomodation.

Where does convergent vs divergent thinking enter into your theory?

Changing the new information? You have got to be kidding me! That's what apologists do!

[_Jersey Girl]

Classic categorization tactic.

Charity's inner dialog: "Beastie was one of THOSE Mormons"

Believers are taught that there are a limited number of reasons for a Mormon losing faith. Sinning, wanting to sin, laziness, pride, or never having believed in the first place. Obviously Charity is eager to figure out in which slot to place me.

The fact is that I was such a faithful, loyal believer that members of my ward were shocked when I left the church.

beastie,

According to charity's corrupted Piagetian doctrine, you failed to change information in order to fit in into your schema. That's your problem and has been your problem all along. Please modify all the information on your website to fit into LDS apologetics. See how easy that is?

[_JAK]

Sorry, JAK, I have no intention of looking at the mashed potatoes under a microscope. Besides, I could cut and paste you responses into any post on any topic. You pretty much bring a Johnny One Note to the board.

Charity,
Ad hominem fails on your part. I’ll assume you know what that is. Look it up if you don’t.

I merely address your words directly.

Charity stated:
Sorry, JAK, I have no intention of looking at the mashed potatoes under a microscope. Besides, I could cut and paste you responses into any post on any topic. You pretty much bring a Johnny One Note to the board.

The microscope is exactly what you need. That is, you need to examine evidence closely and with honest, intellectual intent. You’re evading the analysis.

In virtually all of your posts you merely promulgate Mormon propaganda. I should say that is a singular bias devoid of rational scrutiny and academic excellence.

Do you actually have any idea what “a circular definition” is?

It’s what I criticized directly. One cannot define a term with the same term. That’s no definition. It’s why we call it a circular definition. It travels in a circle.

I don’t think you’re able to address my analysis. Attempting to substitute character attack for a rejoinder to what has been said is evasion. So long as you keep dodging the issues you yourself raise, I’ll call you on it if I see it.

Your failure to refute any analysis in my posts demonstrates your inability to do that.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

I’ll close by calling your attention to the fact that I quoted verbatim paragraphs from your post and responded directly to them.

I much prefer to use color to distinguish people in the discussion as individuals are quoted and a response is given. This is much more difficult to read.

JAK

JAK, I don't wish to go back through this post paragraph by paragraph. There are some general observations.

1. You insist on holding up this, clean, open, whatever lens that everyone must look through. Your lens, however, is of you own grinding. It is like putting a microscrope to your supper. YOu can't take the time to look at every little atom of mashed potatoes.

2. Piaget's theory of learning does not refer ONLY to correct, accurate nformation. If we only learned that which was correct, we would all be wandering around in an ignorant fog. It is how we deal with EVERY piece of information we are confronted with.

3. Cognifitive dissonance is cognitive dissonance. There isn't one kind of cognitive dissonance for religion, and a different one for everything else.

Charity,
Read the link to Wikipedia I gave you. You misrepresent what that author was addressing in your post.

Charity stated:
JAK, I don't wish to go back through this post paragraph by paragraph.

JAK:
Of course you don’t. I addressed exactly what you said after I quoted you with copy/paste.

Charity stated:
1. You insist on holding up this, clean, open, whatever lens that everyone must look through. Your lens, however, is of you own grinding. It is like putting a microscrope to your supper. YOu can't take the time to look at every little atom of mashed potatoes.

JAK:
There is no refutation here for my comments, Charity.
Address the precise detail of my comments if you wish. The issue is clear, transparent evidence which will stand the test of open skeptical review. Cognitive dissidence is the difference between we know or can know and our refusal (dissidence) to recognize the evidence.

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs.

Charity stated:
2. Piaget's theory of learning does not refer ONLY to correct, accurate nformation. If we only learned that which was correct, we would all be wandering around in an ignorant fog. It is how we deal with EVERY piece of information we are confronted with. (bold added to clarify flawed statement)

JAK:
Re-read the details of the author’s biography which I linked for you.

Your statement in 2 makes no sense. Jersey Girl addressed you as well on your flawed thinking.

There is no need to deal with information in a “fog.” And when information clearly and in detail refutes ancient mythologies, we should opt for the information. General ignorance increases as we turn back the clock of history. We know more today than we knew 100 years ago and more than we knew 10 years ago.

As updated information becomes available, we (most rational people) embrace the new information. We use it (applied science such as your computer).

Charity stated:
3. Cognifitive dissonance is cognitive dissonance. There isn't one kind of cognitive dissonance for religion, and a different one for everything else.

JAK:
Sentence one is a circular definition which says and defines nothing.

Second, any disconnect with reliable information in people is cognitive dissonance.

Look up some words here. You’re attempting a straw man attack. Otherwise, you would have quoted me directly and addressed what I actually said.

JAK

Sorry, JAK, I have no intention of looking at the mashed potatoes under a microscope. Besides, I could cut and paste you responses into any post on any topic. You pretty much bring a Johnny One Note to the board.

charity,

The above type of response from you is exactly the reason that JAK recently made this statement to antishock8:

This should give you some idea of what you’re dealing with in Charity.

Don’t attempt to confuse her with the facts or requirement for evidence for faith-based conclusions, she is not interested.

You don't want to engage in thought, charity. You want to put up a post and ignore any challenge to your statements or your thinking.

[_Jersey Girl]

Cognitive dissonance is part of the reason why we learn. It is neither bad nor good. It just is.

Just stop with the twisting of Piaget. Its getting pathetic...ok, even MORE pathetic.

Turn your degree back into Devry and call it a night.

You see, charity, here is the telling factor. So far as I know, Mercury doesn't have an educational background steeped in Piagetian theory and yet he can detect the twisting. You need to rethink your hypothesis, charity. It just doesn't work and the process of taking in information, evaluating and revising schema is a far more complex process than you've made it out to be.

Additional thoughts: You have not factored in culture, moral development, social development, personality nor have you accounted for the onset or lack of formal operations in adults. There were no comments in your post regarding compartmentalization, convergent vs divergent thinking, religious indoctrination (that would be convergent thinking), the effects of didactic vs facilitative education, or the relationship between socio-ecomonic status and the quality and availabilty of education and life experiences in your posts. (That's off the top of my head)

Hey, I ain't doin' too bad for a Jersey Girl!

:-)

p.s. Please don't begin a post with "school teacher" time and then proceed to chop Piaget to pieces where I can see it. Weren't you the poster who not so very long ago commented that posters should move beyond kindergarten replies and get out of concrete operations?

See anything wrong with that?

[_Jersey Girl]

See, I have a memory for this kinda stuff, charity. Here is a comment from you in a post dated November 20, 2007.

This is ridiculous. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone here who thinks above concrete operational thought. Let's talk in the abstract, and raise this discussion a little from the kindergarten level.

Care to interpret that in terms of Piagetian theory?

[Guest]

Sometimes, we rework the old schema so that the new information can fit in without changing the new information. Sometimes we change the new information so it will fit the schema without changing the scheme. Assimilation or accomodation.

The changing of new information is where you go wrong, charity. It is not the changing of information that constitutes assimilation and accomdation, it is *the revising of schema*. How on earth you can justify corrupting Piagetian theory is beyond me.

This is the definiton of assimilation: :The process by which a person takes material into their mind from the environment, which may mean changing the evidence of their senses to make it fit." i.e. new information has to be "changed" to fit. Which is what I said.

I have read an article by Terryl Givens (The Lightning of Heaven, BYU studies) where he makes the statement that there is plenty of evidence on either side for what he calls "a life of credible belief" or "a life of dismissive denial."

What is his position of conclusions reached via critical thinking and analysis. There are more options than what you say Givens presents.

So if you don't accept it, or you don't deny it, what is left? A neutral position. Wait and see?

I think this assimilation/accomodation problem is the answer on the surface to why two people can take the same information and deal with it in these contrary modes.

The real question is why does one person go one way and the other person go the other?

Because one person is functioning in formal ops and other in concrete ops

Come on, charity! This is Piagetian Theory 101 for Dummies!

I didn't call the people here dummies. But I think I can see what you mean with formal operational thought and concrete operational thought. People who deal only in facts can't deal with abstract concepts. People who deal with religious truths for which there aren't provable facts, must needs be at the formal operational level.

OR...

They are both functioning in formal ops and one or the other compartmentalizes their thinking.

I think Dan Vogel illustrates this compartmentalization. He absolutely cannot admit that there is any supernatural realm, and everything has to stay in that box.

I would be interested to hear ideas on this. And I hope the discussion can stay well above the level of "because you are stupid," or "because you are brainwashed."

How do you plan to incorporate the stages of cognitive development in to your theory? You could have thought a little more about the characteristics and cognitive abilities of concrete vs formal ops instead of skimming the surface of Piagetian theory and simply reducing it to assimilation and accomodation.

I think probably formal operation or concrete operational may have something to say on the subject, as I answered you questions above.

I really don't know how everything interacts. That was why I asked the question.

Where does convergent vs divergent thinking enter into your theory?

I don't have a theory. I have questions. Convergent thinking, the one right or best answer, seems to fit the one true gospel and Church concept. Divergent thinking many right answer, no wrong answers, may fit well in some venues. Which is what the traditional Christian world is, or even the world as a whole, but it certainly is not the Lords' way. Just one example: Matt. 7: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Changing the new information? You have got to be kidding me! That's what apologists do!

Only from your side of the fence.

[_Jersey Girl]

charity

People who deal with religious truths for which there aren't provable facts, must needs be at the formal operational level.

How do you figure that? Come on, let's hear it.